Helix

Well saying it has something to do with immunology is sort of the narrow view of it--yes part of it encodes for immunological proteins but a chromosome is the physical carrier of the genetic code and inheritance. I think they meant that dicoveries were made about Chromosome 6, not that its existance was first noted. This whole idea of intelligence being encoded by genes is highlighted the nature vs. nuture debate which is an ongoing scientific feud about what shapes us the most: genes or environment? Ridley in his book, Genome, hypothesizes that Chromosome 6 may have a connection but it is up for debate. If there is a link it would be on gene IGF2R, which some scientists say is in "genius" people but not "normal ones". Link: http://flysci.com/genome/genome_6.asp I personally think genes have some sway over intelligence (and other traits), but environment can shape that significantly. my view on the subject is nature via nurture. That means genetic predispositions will be highlighted via a good environmental base.

A close friend of mine has severe alleriges to salmon, his throat closes up, and has had this problem all his life. I was curior about this, specifically what is it in salmon and the related fish that cause allerigc reaction in such specific areas? I did research (read: I googled it) but there were no substantive answers. I would guess that some protein enagages in a chemical reaction causing the epithelial tissue in the throat to close, but I was wondering if anyone knew the actual cause.

Well possbily. That's not a scientific fact that they will but merely that they could given the proper cirumstances. If that would happen, many would die.

That's true, and pretty interesting. Now we think of life in two ways: "life as we know it (us)" and "alien (not us)". What if some alien species used triple, quadruple or even hexagonal (I'm not using the word correctly, I'm aware. The real word slipped my mind) DNA. This would blur the line for sure, and they would be far more complex (3,4,6-times the complexity of our genes. But back on topic, and to answer the initial question, they do exist. Now I am wondering if they can help with diseases like cancer..?

Right H5N1 is currently not easily transmisible person-to-person. The fear is, however, that that won't last and it will evolve into something more pathogenic. What if H9 and H5N1 would cross infect in the same species (i.e. both strains infect the same pig)? That would mix the viral genes and create this problem far more quickly than anticipated.

That's a good point; where do we strike the balance between preparing for a potential - not certain - disaster and protecting from the yearly assult? I personally feel that even if a balance is struck, there is a fundemental problem with the vaccine and its development/distribution. First, how do we know it will hold up to a pandemic? How much clinical research has been done? Secondly who will pay for it, the government and add to the enormous national and international debt? What if they don't want to spend the money, do we all just die? Many questions, few answers. If we get hit, it will be sort of comical. All this "preperation" when really not a lot is being done.

I also just started geometry, yes 9th grade math is quite fun, and I like it. It's so much more practical and applicable to life than algebra. But this is from someone who isn't crazy about math, I love it but I am really into biology.

Cloning it tough, and there are plenty of other proteins and biomarkers to keep scientists occupied, but you're right; it should be cloned, it's promising (though not to the extent which it is billed as being)

Yes, that would be a Bush response. Don't fix the problem, isolate it and let it die. It worked in Iraq right...right? But the three pandemics a century sounds frightening but when you consider how fast modern transportation is, getting a virus around the world could feasibly take a few days. Scary thought. I wonder what the governments would collectively do if this turns out to be Number 1?

Ok after factoring in your price range I think an experiment in alternative fuels is a good path. I would construct the experiment as a comparison and then change the varibles (such as temperature or amount of fuel or something) and see which preforms better. So $20 of gas, $10 solar cells around $50-70 for a small cheap diesel engine (I think you can get them that cheap, not sure) and some third fuel. That's just one basic idea, hope that can help. If not I hope it didn't completly waste neuronal space.

So Avian flu, H5N1, had been in the news lately and is widely heralded as a large threat to humanity, similar in genetics and potential impact to the 1918 pandemic. Is Avian flu this much of a threat? Is this media hype gone overboard OR are our government leaders shunning a serious health risk? Also, what type of impact would avian flu have on humanity, how much damage would really be wrought (realistically)? Do we have enough vaccines? Personally, I think this is a risk but because of all the hype people are freaking out and therefore the governments are collectively saying "We should handle this before riots break out." So, in my view, avian flu isn't as much of a threat as it could be because of the panic. Genetically, I think avian flu is a monster. Part benign airborne, part deadly groundborne total killer (sorry for the movie-previewesque comparison). This virus is a very real threat and would kill many people, but as I said, probably won't. So enough rambling, what do you think? Hype? Apocolypse? Just-another-virus-because-we're-raping-the-planet-and-we-deserve-this?

Well yes, the target of RECAF is definitely known because it is tailored to target cancer markers and find traces of cancer in the blood. What it targets is the main part of how it works. As far as protein structure of DNA sequence, I'm not sure what type of enzyme or protein it is (if it is one), this is the first I've head of the therapy. But I would assume that is also known because to know the targets you have to know generally how the molecule in question works, what it "looks like" at a molecular level. So yes, it is probably floating around on the internet or journal article somewhere .

This is due to the underlying force that ensures that genetics works: biochemisty. Grey occurs in both sexes because the pigment is gradually lost. This happens in almost everyone execpt for those who have a genetic disposition. The "intelligent cell" theory is logical but it is explained by biochemistry.

What Emily said is true, TERT (and specifically hTERT) is being used extensively in anti-cancer vaccines [http://www.geron.com/showpage.asp?code=prodcatv]. And telomeres are also being used to probe why senescence doesn't occur in malignant cancer. I think it's a bit wishful to think the cure to cancer and the secret to aging will be handed to us on a silver platter. Just like in all of biology, there will be hard work involved. Sorry to disappoint.

Well wait...that's assuming acne would be a chronic problem independant of aging. Acne is a problem because (and this is based on vague memories) hormones and such associated with puberty. It isn't youe body learning to deal with it, the source of the problem actually dissapates.

It does, re-stimulating tissue to become active has a myriad of oppertunities in medicine such as tissue reconstruction after accidents/fires.

Well don't speak so fast, as in all of genetics things aren't as simple as they seem. I am not an expert on either but I do know telomerase/telomere therapies are far from "ineffective." I am currently working on a research project with telomeres and they are, in my view, the most promising aspects of modern genetics.

Blind luck. But now I see.

Yeah I read that, in the Nobel interview the other scientist says "well no...I didn't eat it but Dr. Marshall did." Talk about being committed to your work. There's a fine line between genius and insanity and I'm pretty sure that's straddling it (which is good, science without risks is just a bunch of facts.)

So I think most of you are aware the 2005 Nobels were awarded and I wanted to know what you all thought of this years Medicine/Physiology winner(s)? This really refutes the old wives' tale about stress (something I believed up until now). I heard most scientists didn't belive them about bacteria and ulcers and that it took quite a while for the community to catch on. It's sad that some of the major accomplishments in science (telomeres, hayflick limit, DNA to name a few) aren't recognized for some time. Link: http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/2005/index.html

I'm a bit late in the discussion but replying to what was previously said, why use monoclonal antibodies, not proven in the lab to be viably effective, when telomerase inhibitors work just as well? There are side effects (skin toxicity, impotency among others mentioned before) but the option is still "alive." I was under the impression monoclonal antibodies fell out of favor for whatever reasons.

Well I'm unsure what a "pro-hormone" is but with my experiance with molecular biology, details count. Many diseases arise from a protein having a slightly different structure or some arcane obscure enzyme having some minor modification. So, I would venture that a change, even minor, would affect the preformance but I certainly could be wrong. Insteresintg idea though.

Well this seems relatively scientific, but please forgive me for adding some reason. This sounds all well and Nobel-worthy, but what basis do you have for your arguement? From what I gathered you have a ground-breaking method to analyze genes based on these 6 special codons. But how? How does this work and more importantaly, how did you discover it? Are your results reproducable? If you can provide some facts and proof, way to go, if not then maybe get back to the drawing board.